Con/ Negative Case Framework: As a country founded on the principle of equality, the US government, when considering whether it should do something, policy actions must be weighed against how they might affect equity. The government should not make policy decisions that further inequities, because actions that worsen the already existing structural violence are no solutions at all. We negate that US government should promote the development of market rate housing in urban neighborhoods. Contention 1 is gentrification. Professor Jason Reece of Ohio State University explains that gentrification refers to the process of extensively displacing low income residents and the residents of color and totally changing the culture of the neighborhood. Market rate housing increases gentrification for the following three reasons. Subpoint A is decreasing economic mobility of the poor. According to Amee Chew for Shelter Force, market-rate housing is primarily geared toward the luxury market. She explains that as a result, market-rate housing development has price ripple effects on surrounding neighborhoods, driving up rents and increasing the burden on lower-income households. Merriam Zuck of UC Berkeley found that, in 2016, market-rate developments increased the housing cost burden on low-income people. According to the Urban Institute, a family's stability in housing and residing in a place with access to employment, education and health care resources are important for economic mobility. In other words, the affordability of housing is a crucially important factor in maintaining stability. However, because market rate housing increases rent burdens on the poor, thereby making access to basic necessities more difficult, it decreases the economic mobility of the poor, perpetuating structural violence. Subpoint B is limiting subsidized housing. According to the San Francisco Planning Department Analysis, San Francisco loses more than one existing affordable housing unit for every two it creates. The report furthers that currently, the city is building enough market-rate housing but not enough affordable housing to meet the city's and state's goals. Less than 18 percent of all new units created in the last 10 years were considered affordable, according to the report. This is a problem because Zuk of UC Berkeley concludes that the best way to prevent best way to prevent gentrification and displacement is to build affordable housing in cities and neighborhoods where rents and home prices are rising fastest. The study finds that building affordable units is twice as effective in reducing displacement as building more market rate housing. Subpoint C is worsening opportunity gaps for the poor. Luxury development itself and the influx of higher-income residents, both promoted by market-rate housing, are linked to higher housing cost burdens for low-income residents, as well as displacement, because of their price effects on the real estate market. According to NPR, "Eviction isn't just a condition of poverty; it's a cause of poverty," Desmond says. "Eviction is a direct cause of homelessness, but it also is a cause of residential instability, school instability [and] community instability.” The Washington Post furthers that evictions put low income individuals an impossible situation since evictions ban people from government housing programs and many landlords will not turn to someone who has been evicted. Holder of City Lab adds, “Those burdens often manifest physically. When families are forced to make budget trade-offs, they spend less on food and transportation; and way less on healthcare for seniors and kids. That’s not to mention the psychological toll that housing instability itself takes—and the harmful cycle of eviction that starts with a few unpaid bills and can spiral into extended periods of homelessness.” Because market rate hosing worsens poverty, we negate. Instead of promoting the development of market-rate housing, the US must turn to affordable housing to close the opportunity gaps caused by the disparities between the rich and the poor. Construction of new affordable housing as well as programs that rehabilitate existing housing stock to make it affordable create a host of jobs, from architects to contractors to others employed in the construction trade. Local businesses that supply building materials and other supplies benefit from the sale of such products or services to the building contractors. Local governments reap the benefit of increased income in the form of occupational license fees or net profits from the jobs and services being provided. Often, affordable housing is constructed on vacant, underutilized parcels because they are more cost-effective to develop. This increases the value of the property, which in turn means increased property taxes that flow to local and state governments and local school boards. This new or renovated affordable housing often increases the value of neighboring properties and can stabilize marginal neighborhoods. Affordable housing provides economic benefits to those who live in it, too. Households that pay less from their paychecks for housing costs can afford to spend more on other items, including groceries, clothing and health care. They can also afford to save more for emergencies or for major purchases such as a car or education. This provides these households with greater economic stability because it is easier to avoid living from paycheck to paycheck. They are less likely to face eviction or the stress of moving from place to place because they fall short of rental or housing payments. Persons who live in affordable housing tend to be more stable, long-term employees because they do not need to move so often and face difficulties coming to work regularly. Businesses benefit by having a stable employee population because it reduces employee turnover and related costs in training new employees. It also reduces problems associated with lack of dependability as to whether a sufficient number of employees will show up to work their shifts.
